Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010101432023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/142/2023 GOUR SUNDAR CHANDA S/O LATE JATINDRA MOHAN CHANDA, R/O RASH BIHARI LANE, RANGIRKHARI, PORGONA BARAKPAR, P.S.-SILCHAR, DIST-CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788005 VERSUS SMT. PURNIMA DEB W/O SRI BISHNU DEB, R/O NUTAN BAZAR, P.O.-NARSINGPUR, PORGONA DAVID SONABAD, P.S.-DHOLAI, DIST-CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788115 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K GHOSH, MS F AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S D PURKAYASTHA, MS S.S.BORA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER 22.08.2025 Heard Mr. S. K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S D Purkayastha, learned counsel representing the respondent. This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 09.03.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Cachar at Silchar in Misc. (J) Page No.# 2/3 Case No. 76/2022 arising out of T.S. No. 140/2019. The petitioner, being the defendant, wanted to amend the written statement by putting a new paragraph as paragraph 8(c) after the paragraph 8 (b). proposed amendment reads as under: “That the answering defendant filed the photocopy the aforesaid deed of agreement for sale dated 19.01.2019 along with all the other documents relied upon by the defendant in support of his defence together with a petition under Order VIII Rule 1 seeking leave of the court to produce /call for the original owners from respective custodies during the appropriate stage in the suit. The plaintiff submitted her examination-in-chief as PW-1 and she was partly cross-examined on 09.03.2022. At that point of time, and from 4th March, 2022 the defendant was in Hyderabad for his treatment. Therefore, the original deed of agreement was not available with the engaged lawyer of the defendant and as such on his verbal prayer, further cross examination of the PW1 was kept reserved by the court on 09.03.2022. Thereafter the defendant reached Silchar and met the engaged lawyer. The engaged lawyer explained the situation and asked the defendant to produce the original deed of agreement for sale dated 19.01.2019 as aforesaid for production of the same before the court on the next date fixed for cross- examination of the PW1. Then the defendant expressed that on 19.01.2019 only one set of deed of agreement for sale was prepared at the instance of the plaintiff and her husband and after execution of the original agreement for sale, it was retained by the plaintiff and a photocopy thereof was furnished to the defendant.” The learned trial court refused the prayer on the ground that no due diligence was exercised by the petitioner/defendant and the trial has already commenced. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. The petitioner/defendant filed the photocopy of the agreement for sale on an earlier occasion. The original copy of the said agreement for sale was in possession of the respondent/plaintiff. This court is of the opinion that prayer made by the petitioner/defendant before the trial court is in compliance of the provision of law as laid down under Order 8 Rule 1A of the CPC. Moreover, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff if the prayer of the petitioner/defendant is allowed. Neither the nature nor the character of the suit will be changed. Page No.# 3/3 For the aforesaid reasons, the prayer of the petitioner/defendant is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.03.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Cachar at Silchar in Misc. (J) Case No. 76/2022 arising out of T.S. No. 140/2019 is set aside and quashed. The trial court is directed to allow the prayer of the petitioner/defendant to implead the aforesaid amendment in the written statement. After the amendment, the respondent/plaintiff shall be at liberty to file additional evidence of PW-1. With the above, the present civil revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant